4 ms·

The occupation is completely relevant however the declaration is utterly meaningless (I say that with all due respect to JoshWright) on pseudonymous discussion

by dfc 12y ago

The occupation is completely relevant however the declaration is utterly meaningless (I say that with all due respect to JoshWright) on pseudonymous discussion boards. "Because I said so" is the antithesis of reasoned discourse. To be honest if a commenter has personal association with a certain topic it seems that it is even easier for them to find legitimate resources to back up their assertion than it is for a curious bystander/enthusiast. If you and I were having a lively mature discussion/disagreement about something would you accept "because someone on the internet said so" as evidence that your conclusion was false? Would it make a difference if I told you that the pseudonymous internet commenter signed their comment "Source: I am a XYZ"?

vacri 12y ago
Would it make a difference if I told you that the pseudonymous internet commenter signed their comment "Source: I am a XYZ"? Well, yes. Not ironclad authority, but it does actually provide context to their commentary. If the occupation wasn't declared, that context would be missing. It also opens the door for other professionals to say "I also -foo- and we -bar- instead". It would provide a different context had it instead been 'park ranger' or a directly article-relevant 'coast guard in Illinois'. For comments like this one, about rescue procedures, the scope for fake commentary isn't particularly high anyway. It's not a hot-button topic and the commentary isn't at fever pitch (when you stop believing anything anyone says).
- dfc 12y ago
  It is safe to say that you and I have different opinions about when to accept things based on faith.
  - vacri 12y ago
    I find it very weird that you'll take the same comment on faith enough to direct an expression of respect ("I could not let my respect for what you do get in the way"), but won't take it on faith enough to allow it to indicate personal experience.
lotharbot 12y ago
> "Would it make a difference if I told you that the pseudonymous internet commenter signed their comment "Source: I am a XYZ"?" On Hacker News, from a commenter with an established reputation? It would definitely make me reconsider. More importantly, the line helps establish the context and scope of the observation. "Source: I'm a firefighter" both establishes that this person is speaking from experience and training regarding emergency response, and it establishes that the person is not a part of the Coast Guard and therefore their observation may not necessarily reflect the specific details of CG procedure vs FD procedure.
- dfc 12y ago
  I realize I am in the minority here but I really think you are begging the question by saying this "establishes that this person is speaking from experience and training regarding emergency response." Maybe we have different understandings of the definition of "establish"?
  - lotharbot 12y ago
    I find it unnecessary to always include the caveat "establishes ... unless the person is lying". In particular: 1) this is not a contentious discussion wherein someone might be tempted to fake credentials/experience in order to "win" one side of the argument (low reward) 2) HN is the sort of place where you tend to run into people with various types of experience, which also means people who fake credentials/experience have a hard time passing themselves off as legitimate (high risk) 3) the commenter in question has an established HN profile, which is evidence (though not proof) that he says generally correct and worthwhile things. It seems unlikely that he'd spend as long as he has cultivating his profile/comment history and then suddenly decide to make up a bogus firefighter story for no reason. 4) In the highly likely event that the guy isn't lying, my statement stands: including "source: I'm [job]" is a useful statement because it establishes the context and scope of the observations being made, particularly the type of experience and the degree to which it relates to the article in question. It's not, as you suppose, a comment designed to "win" or "shut down" discussion; it's a way to provide readers with information that helps them understand the perspective being shared and helps them understand what types of questions different people in the discussion might be best suited to answer.

by dfc 12y ago

vacri 12y ago

Would it make a difference if I told you that the pseudonymous internet commenter signed their comment "Source: I am a XYZ"? Well, yes. Not ironclad authority, but it does actually provide context to their commentary. If the occupation wasn't declared, that context would be missing. It also opens the door for other professionals to say "I also -foo- and we -bar- instead". It would provide a different context had it instead been 'park ranger' or a directly article-relevant 'coast guard in Illinois'. For comments like this one, about rescue procedures, the scope for fake commentary isn't particularly high anyway. It's not a hot-button topic and the commentary isn't at fever pitch (when you stop believing anything anyone says).

dfc 12y ago
It is safe to say that you and I have different opinions about when to accept things based on faith.
- vacri 12y ago
  I find it very weird that you'll take the same comment on faith enough to direct an expression of respect ("I could not let my respect for what you do get in the way"), but won't take it on faith enough to allow it to indicate personal experience.

lotharbot 12y ago

> "Would it make a difference if I told you that the pseudonymous internet commenter signed their comment "Source: I am a XYZ"?" On Hacker News, from a commenter with an established reputation? It would definitely make me reconsider. More importantly, the line helps establish the context and scope of the observation. "Source: I'm a firefighter" both establishes that this person is speaking from experience and training regarding emergency response, and it establishes that the person is not a part of the Coast Guard and therefore their observation may not necessarily reflect the specific details of CG procedure vs FD procedure.

dfc 12y ago
I realize I am in the minority here but I really think you are begging the question by saying this "establishes that this person is speaking from experience and training regarding emergency response." Maybe we have different understandings of the definition of "establish"?
- lotharbot 12y ago
  I find it unnecessary to always include the caveat "establishes ... unless the person is lying". In particular: 1) this is not a contentious discussion wherein someone might be tempted to fake credentials/experience in order to "win" one side of the argument (low reward) 2) HN is the sort of place where you tend to run into people with various types of experience, which also means people who fake credentials/experience have a hard time passing themselves off as legitimate (high risk) 3) the commenter in question has an established HN profile, which is evidence (though not proof) that he says generally correct and worthwhile things. It seems unlikely that he'd spend as long as he has cultivating his profile/comment history and then suddenly decide to make up a bogus firefighter story for no reason. 4) In the highly likely event that the guy isn't lying, my statement stands: including "source: I'm [job]" is a useful statement because it establishes the context and scope of the observations being made, particularly the type of experience and the degree to which it relates to the article in question. It's not, as you suppose, a comment designed to "win" or "shut down" discussion; it's a way to provide readers with information that helps them understand the perspective being shared and helps them understand what types of questions different people in the discussion might be best suited to answer.